Christianity is heading for a full allegorization

[GrandizerII]

First, Kuhn's analysis of the Copernican revolution shows how little he knows about the evidence that was available at the time. And, frankly, this paragraph shows the same thing.

The first, most important part is that we *cannot* know whether a particular result is the result of experimental error, incorrect predictions from a theory, or that the theory itself has problems. So, we should not expect there to be 'automatic' error correction--it is impossible without a good deal of evidence what the error actually is.

In the case of the Copernican revolution, the actual evidence in support of the new position simply wasn't available until Galileo and Kepler did their investigations. So we would not *want* the scientists at the time to automatically go for the Copernican system, especially since it ended up (in the version Copernicus gave) being more complicated than the Ptolemaic system.

But, for example, look at the development that happened after the Michelson Morley experiment. A number of different proposals were made, from questioning he results of the experiment itself to aspects related to the ether and possible length contractions. This was all before Einstein submitted his proposal (which was in line with some of the other theoretical work previously). Once a good theory was found, the shift happened fairly quickly because the evidence was already there.

In comparison, quantum mechanics took decades between the first realization that the plum-pudding model of the atom couldn't work (because of the existence of the nucleus) to the realization that electrons, say, have a wave aspect. This involved heated debates on all sides with evidence proposed, questioned, and explanation proposed and debated.

If you expect that working science expects to reject a consensus view and adopt another view quickly, then you misunderstand how science *should* work. It *should* be a process of figuring out what from the old system works, what the different possibilities are for a new system, weighing the evidence and figuring out if it is mistaken (which often happens), etc.

I certainly don't expect scientific consensus to take on an alternative view quickly. On the contrary.

My point (which you have partially reinforced with these paragraphs) is that science is very messy in real life. It's not one rigid and flawless method by which we can efficiently separate correct views from incorrect views. It often takes years, decades, perhaps even centuries for radical ideas to be embraced by the scientific community.

Where we part ways here is you think this is primarily because of insufficient evidence, whereas I think there's more to the story than that. I think human beings, scientists or not, are naturally resistant to new ideas that pose a threat to the worldviews they hold dear to and it therefore takes time to dismantle strongly held erroneous views, even if sufficient evidence was immediately presented and evaluated. Even in the example you brought up regarding the Michelson Morley experiment, we see there was initial opposition to the results of that experiment. Certain circumstances, however, did lead to scientific community widely accepting the results years or decades later.

Many doubt that there even *is* a 'hard' problem of consciousness. And the 'soft' problem is being worked on with major advances in process. The different interpretations of QM are mostly philosophical rot. The theory itself is very clear about what it predicts and the observations agree with it. Anything else is probably useless metaphysics.

Yeah, I don't know why some doubt there is a hard problem of consciousness, but the fact is no one has been able to scientifically show how the physiological translates to the phenomenological (or in the case of illusionists, to the appearance of the phenomenological). So whether you doubt there is a problem or not, the challenge remains.

I disagree that QM interpretations are mostly philosophical rot, and consider some of them to be different scientific (or science-based) stances on QM. Besides, surely, you must hold to some interpretation of QM (even if it's just the Copenhagen one). Otherwise, it's basically a "shut up and just do the maths" stance which isn't a stance that reflects much intellectual curiosity and appears to imply that science does have its limitations.

I'll be more than happy to take revelation seriously when it gives testable predictions of sufficient detail that is can be taken seriously. if you want to propose non-physical evidence, please present it in a way that leads to testable predictions that can be tested via public observations.

If it's non-physical, I'm not sure that's possible. But look, that's part of the ideology you hold to, so that's fair.

Agreed. There is an aspect of ideology, but I would argue that it is more the cautious aspect of science that frustrates people than the fact that it actually reaches conclusions eventually.

To be honest, I think what frustrates people as well is that people who hold to an idealized view of science often appear to have a blindness to the philosophical positions upon which science is based, positions which cannot be justified via science itself. All the while decrying those who do make claims not justified by science and referring to them as "useless metaphysics" or some such.